News, reviews, and commentary on the world of superhero comics from your favorite college professor (or me)

June 2011

June 22, 2011

This morning at Newsarama, Jill Pantozzi points out that DC sent out a press release at the last minute announcing that today's Superman #712, which was supposed to contain a Roberson/Straczynski story about social prejudice in the context of the "Grounded" storyline, has been replaced by what fans have come to know as the "lost" Krypto story, written by Kurt Busiek during his lengthy "One Year Later" run on the Superman books, but was shunted aside for continuity reasons. Now that DC has much less regard for continuity, especially current (pre-September) continuity, they like that story again, but that could have gone in a special one-shot--and doesn't Krypto deserve his own book?

But back to the original story, which was solicited like this:

Meet Los Angeles’s newest super hero in the latest Chapter of “Grounded”: Sharif! But Sharif discovers that in today’s current cultural climate, some people don’t want his help – they just want him gone. Can Superman aid Sharif and quell a prejudiced public, or are there some problems too big even for the Man of Steel to solve?

Sounds perfect for the "Grounded" storyline, which was ostensibly meant to allow Superman to be a modern Hard Traveling Hero (without a pick-up truck and a plainclothes Guardian of the Universe) and encounters firsthand the ills of contemporary America. But DC apparently didn't see things the same way:

DC Comics determined that the previously solicited story did not work within the “Grounded” storyline.

Like Superman, Sharif is a character with powers and abilities far beyond those of normal folks, who came to this country as a child and grew up dedicating himself to Truth, Justice, and the American Way. But the fact that he comes not from an alien world but from another country here on Earth complicates matters for him, and he quickly learns that some people have a different idea of what “The American Way” is all about.

Sounds like a terrific story, and one that I'm sure Roberson told with his customary insight, balance, and humor. Maybe in the run-up to the next reboot/relaunch, we'll have a chance to see it.

(For more on Superman and the American Way, see this post, as well as Andrew Terjesen's chapter "Is Superman an American Icon?" in Superheroes: The Best of Philosophy and Pop Culture, a promotional e-book coming from Wiley soon.)

UPDATE: And if the story change weren't enough, they also messed with George Perez's gorgeous cover--Bleeding Cool has the story here.

UPDATE 2: See Chris Sims' excellent and lengthy treatment, including Sharif's original appearance as Sinbad and incorporation of the Nightrunner controversy, at Comics Alliance.

UPDATE 3: Wow, this story gets better and better... Bleeding Cool gives the real reason behind the switch, and it has nothing to do with Sharif...

June 21, 2011

ASSOCIABLE PRESS--In a surpise move, DC Comics discovered that longtime head honcho Dan DiDio is actually a woman, then abruptly fired him her.

Fellow employees' reactions were mixed. A Mr. Lee, who asked that his first name (Jim) be withheld, said, "I can't believe I didn't see it before--I mean, the dude's just so damn pretty." Another DC employee, a Mr. Johns whose first name isn't Jeff but oddly sounds just like it, said, "That would explain all the sexual tension in our meetings, which I always thought was strange since it's always been all guys."

When asked if DiDio's dismissal was due to the shocking revelation, DC higher-ups scoffed, one asserting:

What do you mean, of course not--I mean, look at our new 52 books coming in September. We have a female writer. We also have a female artist. One of each! I think there may even be a female assistant editor, maybe two--wait, do we need two? Hmm... we'll have to think about that... [trails off, pulling out a book of pink slips]

ASSOCIABLE PRESS: After the highly publicized "Really Final Death of the Fourth Spider-Man This Year" storyline, Marvel Comics has publically admitted that they inadvertently killed their last remaining superhero, and must scramble to find new story ideas. "We relied for so long on 'Death of' stories, which seemed the most natural way to drive kids in the comics shops, that we didn't realize that we accidentally killed all of the heroes that our fans love. We even killed Wolverine, and that dude's freakin' hard to kill!"

In the interim, Marvel will continue to publish Greatest Deaths and Amazing Funerals, containing reprints of the highlights of the previous decade of Marvel Comics.

The most persuasive argument to put Babs back in the boots has always been one that I would argue against vehemently for story reasons, but that was impossible to argue with ethically. And I have heard this question a million times...why is it that virtually every single hero with a grievous injury, or even a death, gets to come back whole, except Barbara Gordon? Why? Why was Batman's back broken, and he was barely in the chair long enough to keep the seat warm, and now it's never even mentioned?

Arms and legs get ripped off, and they grow back, somehow. Graves don't stay filled. But the one constant is that Barbara stays in that chair.

Role model or not, that is problematic and uncomfortable, and the excuses to not cure her, in a world of purple rays and magic and super-science, are often unconvincing or wholly meta-textual. And the longer it goes on, the more it has stretched credibility.

Simone's logic is compelling--why does everyone else in comics come back to life or have life-threatening injuries miraculously resolved, but Barbara Gordon doesn't. But it's her unspoken premise that I want to look into, because I think it's a fascinating area for discussion: in what sense can Barbara Gordon--a fictional character--be understood to "deserve" anything? And if there is such an understanding of having duties toward a fictional character, how do those duties compare with duties to fans (like Pantozzi) who derived tremendous satisfaction from having a character like Oracle in comics (not to mention the other fans, disabled or not, that will enjoy seeing Babs walk again)?

June 19, 2011

Action Comics and Justice League are set in the past, the Green Lantern, Batman and LSH books are all continuing without a reboot. DCU Presents, Green Arrow and Hawkman are picking up where Brightest Day left off. But for everything else, yes, it will be more of a reboot/restart. They are basically keeping the books going that were financially successful for them and restarting everything else.

Wow--that's very upfront, and certainly quite a different picture from the May 31 announcement that implies a complete reboot.

Several questions remain, though:

Was Aquaman inadvertently left out of the Brightest Day group? Or did they say Hawkman by mistake, since the solicitation copy certainly makes Carter seem rebooted. (The same goes for Ollie, come to think of it.)

Superman--the current-day title--is not mentioned, nor is Wonder Woman, so we have to assume they're complete reboots, which has precedent given the John Byrne and George Perez reboots after Crisis on Infinite Earths (respectively).

It confirms whatever creators like Scott Snyder have been saying that changes in the Batman world will be organic and explained in story, rather than by deus ex machina (Latin for Superboy-punch or timestream manipulation).

June 17, 2011

My Green Lantern and Philosophy co-editor Jane Dryden and I have a blog post at my Psychology Today blog about what the Green Lantern Corps can teach us about cooperation and tolerance, especially in light of conflicts over values. Check it out!

June 15, 2011

After the all-but-worthless "news" conference that Geoff Johns and Jim Lee held in LA last weekend, this morning brings the indefatigable* Vaneta Rogers' revealing interview with Bob Harras and Eddie Berganza, in which they are actually quite forthcoming about various details of the DC relaunch.

This passage in particular stands out (it's somewhat long, but I think it's worth it):

Nrama: We've been speaking with creators from different offices and families, and their approach seems to vary. The Batman writers seem to be going out of their way to stress how things aren’t going to be changing that much, but conversely, the Superman titles seem to be going through a radical change. Is there an over-arching editorial edict, or are the “rules” what individual editors and writers want them to be?

Harras: I think there's an overarching discussion. This was a well-thought-out approach to all our characters across the line. But we also looked at events that happened in the past that we wanted to incorporate into current storylines that were going to be part and parcel into our ongoing stories.

So we really did take everything very seriously and looked at big events like Blackest Night and Brightest Day, and wanted to make sure those stayed a part of our stories.

Berganza: Right. The ones that really impacted people, like Death in the Family and Killing Joke. The ones that even people outside regular comic readers know. People know something happened to Barbara Gordon, that the Joker shot her. That counts.

Harras: So we looked at all these characters and really said what we're going to weave in and what we're going keep and what we're going to move forward on.

Nrama: So to clarify, the storylines you've mention, like the Killing Joke and Death in the Family, are definitely part of history going forward?

Harras: Yes, and in fact, they're even important starting points for some of the storylines we have.

Nrama: But that doesn't mean other stories didn't happen, right?

Harras: Correct.

...

Nrama: How were these stories chosen? Because of important deaths? Or collections? Or because they were part of the upcoming stories?

Harras: We're taking this September event very seriously. We looked at what was important to our characters, what we thought were pivotal moments in their lives and could actually make more drama going forward. What really went on was a very comprehensive look at their histories, and Eddie and his team compiled a timeline for our history going forward, and everything that we thought was integral and important was part of that.

Berganza: It was all about the character. It wasn't so much, "what did this event do?" but "what did it do to the individuals?" If we got more story out of it, then definitely, that's what we were definitely going for. For instance, with Killing Joke, that event in the Bat-family is really crucial to what we're doing.

I like their approach, but it seems they're trying to have their cake and eat it too--they want to keep important and treasured continuity, but still make the stories from September on accessible to new readers. But either the continuity is referenced or not--and if they're confident they can tell approachable stories while still retaining a good chunk of existing continuity, then why the big relaunch at all? Why couldn't they just give everyone an editorial mandate that stories must be more character-driven and less mired in continuity, without wiping out that continuity or restructuring the entire universe (e.g., possibly removing the Golden Age altogether)?

In fact, Berganza suggests that this very approach worked before:

We respect continuity, but I think even the fans will admit that once you get too mired in continuity, you start getting away from what's essential, which is character. If you look at what Geoff Johns has done with each time he relaunches a book, you see that it becomes very focused on character, and you don't get into questions about whether the Green Lantern fought this menace or this other menace, or where did evil start or the Starlings. You get more into the core of the character. And I think people have reacted very well to that. I think that's a fine model, where it doesn't get mired in continuity.

Then why didn't they just continue to do that? The only answer seems to be the huge publicity they got from the relaunch--and I do not want to minimize the value of that, if they can get a nice bump in sales from it.

It just seems like an increasingly intricate balancing act: attracting new readers by promising more approachable and character-driven stories, while reassuring longtime fans that their beloved continuity beats won't be forgotten, but just pushed to the background. Let's hope they can pull it off...

* I maintain this word is one of the most difficult to say clearly, especially when you and your audiobook producer descind into giggle fits. So I'm trying to "own" it...

June 13, 2011

Bleeding Cool has a lengthy interview with Scott Lobdell, chiefly about his Teen Titans relaunch - this part stood out to me as reassuring-yet-confusing:

Tim Drake is a perfect example. Yes, he figured out Bruce’s secret identity and yes he became Robin and yes things happened in his past that prompted him to move on from that role and become Red Robin. How long ago was that? What brought him from there to issue one of Teen Titans? I’d like to leave it vague enough that long time fans can take comfort in knowing a lot of the stories they loved still happened…and a lot of new readers (or fans who haven’t read the book in five or ten or twenty years) can sit down with issue one and feel they haven’t missed out on several decades of continuity with these characters and this world.

Similarly, Superboy comes to Teen Titans and his own series with a lot of his D.C.history in place. He still showed up shortly after the Death of Superman, he is still the clone of Superman and Lex Luthor. How we reconcile his past with the opening issues of Teen Titans and Superboy? That, I’m afraid, has to remain vague for now (it is bad enough if someone in the audience shouts out the ending of the movie — imagine how much more depressing it would be if the writer shouted out the end of the movie four months before the movie was released!).

Are there changes and trims and tweaks — in some cases total re-imagining of characters? Yes. But, you’ll find, even with those characters, 95% per cent of them are totally recognizable. (Bart isn’t a serial killer sentenced to the present from the 30th Century. Cassie is still the daughter of archeologist Helena Sandsmark.)

OK--how can some characters undergo a "total re-imagining" yet "95% of them are totally recognizable"? Besides that, I find Lobdell's explanation reassuring, if only because Tim's background seems relatively unchanged (yet I don't see how a de-aging will be possible, but the inconsistency of that across the DCnU is one of the most frustrating things about the relaunch.

June 10, 2011

Superman #1 (note: no subtitle, as reported previously) will be written by George Perez but pencilled by Jesus Merino. "What is Superman’s startling new status quo? How does it affect his friends, loved ones and his job at The Daily Planet?"

Supergirl #1 will be written by Michael Green and Mike Johnson and drawn by Mahmud Asrar. She has "a teenager, the same powers as Superman and none of his affection for the people of Earth." (Wonderful.)

Superboy #1 will be written by Scott Lobdell with art by R.B. Silva and Rob Lean. "They thought he was just a failed experiment, grown from a combination of Kryptonian and human DNA. But when the scope of his stunning powers was revealed, he became a deadly weapon."

They also reveal the full title of Superman: The Man of Tomorrow #1 (with no mention of whether it is George Perez writing and drawing the book). (UPDATE: The Source has the title as simply Superman.)

(And apologies for the strange URL--I had prepared a draft of this post in anticipation of the news, which I had assumed would come in all at once, rather than Action Comics #1 by itself first. After I revised the content, I forgot to change the URL, which Typepad had already saved. Oh well--I'll change it when I reboot relaunch the blog with a new post #1 in a couple years.)